Thursday, May 21, 2015

Should writers and poets have freedom to use dirty words?

Supreme Court passed a verdict stating that obscene language cannot be used against Mahatma
Gandhi, the father of the nation, because he is a historically respectable
figure. The case pertained to a Marathi poem Gandhi
Mala Bhetla Hota (I met Gandhi) written in 1984 by Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar. The
poem became controversial because of the use of cuss words. A member of Patit
Pawan Sangathan filed a police compliant under Sections 153A and 153B of the
IPC (causing disharmony between classes) and Section 292 (obscenity) against
the poet and the publisher. The accused were discharged under 153A and 153B but
not under 292. The high court upheld the verdict and also the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court said,
“When the name of Mahatma Gandhi is alluded or used as a symbol, speaking or
using obscene words, the concept of “degree” comes in. To elaborate, the
“contemporary community standards test” becomes applicable with more vigour, in
a greater degree and in an accentuated manner. What can otherwise pass of the
contemporary community standards test for use of the same language, it would
not be so, if the name of Mahatma Gandhi is used as a symbol or allusion or
surrealistic voice to put words or to show him doing such acts which are
obscene.”

The judgment has
received varied reactions. But those who are advocates of absolute freedom of
expression are very saddened with the verdict. They are of the viewpoint that
there should not be any restriction against the use of
cuss/profane/abusive/obscene words. In fact they assert that an artist should
have the license and protection to portray their work of art or literature the
way they deem fit. In a nutshell they bat for complete freedom to abuse or
insult anybody.

If the freedom for
obscenity is guaranteed then we would create a society where every individual
will unresistingly try to shame the other person as per their whims. We will have a scenario where a child without
any hesitation will abuse his mother, a student without any fear will shame his
teacher, and an employee use his freedom of expression to desecrate the image
of his boss. Are we ready to be part of such a society?

Indecency needs to be
condemned and not condoned. Disagreement, debate and discussions have been part
of Indian society since eons. Learned scholars used to organize debates and
challenge others opinion. The discussions were always civilized. In fact the
Indian epics like Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam is entirely based on
debates, discussions and questions and answers. The opinions of others were not
throttled but they were given opportunity to express it in a decent way. This
is why we find that in India we have plethora of rich literatures – the 4
Vedas, the 18 Puranans, Upanisads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Chaitanya Charitamrta
and many more. Mahabharata is the longest epic poem consisting of 100,000
shloka (verses); it has about 1.8 million words in total. The Vedic books are
considered to be oldest books in the history of mankind.

Later during India’s
freedom movement, the freedom fighters extensively wrote revolutionary poetries
and thought provoking articles and essays to arouse nationalistic fervour
inspiring thousands to join the freedom movement to overthrow the mighty
British Empire. But in their work obscenity and indecency had no place.

So at present the
clamour for the right for obscenity does not augur well for Indian art and
literature. Liberals question what does obscene mean. The Oxford dictionary
defines obscene as “offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality
and decency.”

So should one have the
right to use their artistic freedom for character assassination? As per the
Supreme Court of India, for respectable historical personalities like Mahatma
Gandhi this is forbidden. But what about others and also who would decide and
define “respectable historical personality”? Marxist historians in India have
liberally chosen only those as respectable who adhere to their ideological
principles and they have belittled the image of others especially those with
Hindutva ideology. So, if we stick to this criterion then we will continue to
have paintings insulting Hindu Gods and Goddesses, the way late M F Hussain
did, and authors like Wendy Doniger who used repugnant language while writing
about Hinduism will feel emboldened.

The best way is to not
allow anyone to cross the border of decency while expressing their
opinions. The freedom guaranteed by the
constitution should be utilized judiciously to build a just and righteous
society. It should not be used as a tool to demonize and sully other people’s
image.

It seems that as a
society we have been able to surround our senses with gadgets and gizmos but
still our heart is dry and dirty. And so we take pleasure in throwing muck on
others. As humans our humanity does not just depend on how much we have
advanced materially but it primarily depends on how we deal with others and
also with our ancestors. A person is not just judged by how smartly he dresses
but how politely and honestly he expresses his opinion. Crow and cuckoo can’t
be distinguished by the colour of their skin but by the difference of their
voice.

So, while using the
might of pen we should be very cautious and careful. Words are mightier than
the most powerful weapon of this world, it has the ability to revolutionize and
transform the society. Gita acknowledge its potential and advises us to use it
very careful and intelligently. “Austerity of speech consists in speaking words
that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others.”
(Bhagavad Gita 17.15).

Let us stop promoting,
publishing and patronizing cheap literature and cheap form of art in the name
of freedom of expression.